Rosario v. Big City Management Inc.
- Barbara Moses
- 1:21-cv-04336
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rosario v. Big City Management Inc., Judge Nathan required settlement papers for review and ordered the parties to consider magistrate-judge consent.
Juan Rosario and the defendants, including Big City Management Inc., because the parties must submit settlement materials and address whether to consent to magistrate-judge proceedings.
What happened
Rosario v. Big City Management Inc. is a Fair Labor Standards Act case in which the parties told the court they had reached a settlement.
The court required the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation by April 11, 2022. The submission must explain how the payment amounts were calculated, the hours and wages at issue, any disagreement about those figures, attorney billing records, and any proposed limits on disparaging statements.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent to having all further proceedings handled by a magistrate judge. The court did not approve the settlement in this order, and it adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely.
The detailed version
- Rosario v. Big City Management Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-04336
- Barbara Moses
- Mar. 11, 2022
Background
The parties in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action advised the court that they had reached a settlement. The opinion does not state the settlement's terms.
Settlement-review requirements
The court explained that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), it must review and scrutinize the settlement agreement for fairness before the settlement can take effect. By April 11, 2022, the parties must submit the agreement and a joint letter explaining why it should be approved. Their submission must address the considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., explain how the settlement amounts were calculated, and list the hours worked and wages at issue in enough detail for the court to evaluate the calculations. If the parties disagree about hours worked or wages owed, both sides' estimates must be included. The parties must also provide detailed billing records supporting any request for attorney fees and must provide authority and argument supporting any proposed non-disparagement provision.
Magistrate-judge proceedings
The court advised that it would refer the settlement-approval request to the assigned magistrate judge for a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), unless both parties consented to have the magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings. If the parties consent, the magistrate judge's approval ruling would be final without district-court review of objections. If either party does not consent, the parties must file a joint letter within one week after submitting the settlement agreement, without identifying the nonconsenting party. The court stated that withholding consent would have no negative consequences.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered the parties to meet and confer about consent to magistrate-judge proceedings and set the settlement-submission requirements described above. The order did not approve or reject the settlement. It also adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines indefinitely.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.